Just what did President Obama say about closing Guantanamo?

President Obama speaking at the National Defense University in Washington DC on Thursday, 5/23

On Thursday afternoon President Obama gave a speech about his views on where the United States stands on issues of counter terrorism. It was a far ranging speech including the types of threats that we currently face, how to deal with them, the use of drones for killing people, including US citizens, media freedoms and the interrelation of all these things in a context of what’s legal, what’s moral and what’s likely to accomplish our goals to keep our country safe. As promised, and as introduced in two previous articles about closing Guantanamo Bay detention center I wanted to concentrate on the final part of his speech.

Here’s what he actually said about closing Guantanamo:

…And that brings me to my final topic: the detention of terrorist suspects. I’m going to repeat one more time: As a matter of policy, the preference of the United States is to capture terrorist suspects. When we do detain a suspect, we interrogate them. And if the suspect can be prosecuted, we decide whether to try him in a civilian court or a military commission.

During the past decade, the vast majority of those detained by our military were captured on the battlefield. In Iraq, we turned over thousands of prisoners as we ended the war. In Afghanistan, we have transitioned detention facilities to the Afghans, as part of the process of restoring Afghan sovereignty. So we bring law of war detention to an end, and we are committed to prosecuting terrorists wherever we can.

The glaring exception to this time-tested approach is the detention center at Guantanamo Bay. The original premise for opening Gitmo — that detainees would not be able to challenge their detention — was found unconstitutional five years ago. In the meantime, Gitmo has become a symbol around the world for an America that flouts the rule of law. Our allies won’t cooperate with us if they think a terrorist will end up at Gitmo.

During a time of budget cuts, we spend $150 million each year to imprison 166 people — almost $1 million per prisoner. And the Department of Defense estimates that we must spend another $200 million to keep Gitmo open at a time when we’re cutting investments in education and research here at home, and when the Pentagon is struggling with sequester and budget cuts.

As President, I have tried to close Gitmo. I transferred 67 detainees to other countries before Congress imposed restrictions to effectively prevent us from either transferring detainees to other countries or imprisoning them here in the United States.

These restrictions make no sense. After all, under President Bush, some 530 detainees were transferred from Gitmo with Congress’s support. When I ran for President the first time, John McCain supported closing Gitmo — this was a bipartisan issue. No person has ever escaped one of our super-max or military prisons here in the United States — ever. Our courts have convicted hundreds of people for terrorism or terrorism-related offenses, including some folks who are more dangerous than most Gitmo detainees. They’re in our prisons.

And given my administration’s relentless pursuit of al Qaeda’s leadership, there is no justification beyond politics for Congress to prevent us from closing a facility that should have never have been opened.

And here’s what President Obama didn’t say:

“I will order an immediate end to force feeding, solitary confinement, collective punishment and other rough treatment. Instead I will order a return to communal prayer, adequate oral hydration, fresh air and sunshine, contact with lawyers and family members and with other prisoners.”

“I was the one who stopped Guantanamo prisoners from being returned to Yemen after the “underwear bomber” plot was discovered and I can now begin the process of immediately returning the cleared prisoners who come from Yemen for release to their home country where they are wanted and requested.”

“Under the justice department, I also have executive power to release the other cleared prisoners, already found to pose no threat to the United States by a review of all relevant agencies. I will begin this process immediately and continue until all of the 86 cleared prisoners are released.”

” I will appoint a special counsel to immediately begin the process of working to charge, try, imprison, or release the remaining prisoners in United States courts of law. When they have been moved to the United States for trial I will work with Congress to close Guantanamo for good.”

Words are cheap, especially when many of them have been said before but not followed through on. Actions taken in a swift and just manner will do much to give the prisoners hope, stop the hunger strike and help to repair our damaged reputation in the rest of the world.

I’m not the only one who was dissatisfied with what President Obama said about Guantanamo.

Medea Benjamin interrupts President Obama’s speech, on May 23, 2012

During the speech Medea Benjamin interrupted President Obama’s speech three different times before being removed from the auditorium. Here’s what she said about closing Guantanamo:

Medea Benjamin: Excuse me, President Obama

—THE PRESIDENT: So — let me finish, ma’am. So today, once again —

Medea Benjamin: There are 102 people on a hunger strike. These are desperate people.

THE PRESIDENT: I’m about to address it, ma’am, but you’ve got to let me speak. I’m about to address it.

Medea Benjamin: You’re our Commander-In-Chief —

THE PRESIDENT: Let me address it.

Medea Benjamin: — you can close Guantanamo Bay.

THE PRESIDENT: Why don’t you let me address it, ma’am.

Medea Benjamin: There’s still prisoners —

THE PRESIDENT: Why don’t you sit down and I will tell you exactly what I’m going to do.

Today, I once again call on Congress to lift the restrictions on detainee transfers from Gitmo. (Applause.)I have asked the Department of Defense to designate a site in the United States where we can hold military commissions. I’m appointing a new senior envoy at the State Department and Defense Department whose sole responsibility will be to achieve the transfer of detainees to third countries.I am lifting the moratorium on detainee transfers to Yemen so we can review them on a case-by-case basis. To the greatest extent possible, we will transfer detainees who have been cleared to go to other countries.

THE PRESIDENT: Where appropriate, we will bring terrorists to justice in our courts and our military justice system. And we will insist that judicial review be available for every detainee.

Medea Benjamin: It needs to be —

THE PRESIDENT: Now, ma’am, let me finish. Let me finish, ma’am. Part of free speech is you being able to speak, but also, you listening and me being able to speak. (Applause.)Now, even after we take these steps one issue will remain — just how to deal with those Gitmo detainees who we know have participated in dangerous plots or attacks but who cannot be prosecuted, for example, because the evidence against them has been compromised or is inadmissible in a court of law. But once we commit to a process of closing Gitmo, I am confident that this legacy problem can be resolved, consistent with our commitment to the rule of law.I know the politics are hard.

But history will cast a harsh judgment on this aspect of our fight against terrorism and those of us who fail to end it. Imagine a future — 10 years from now or 20 years from now — when the United States of America is still holding people who have been charged with no crime on a piece of land that is not part of our country. Look at the current situation, where we are force-feeding detainees who are being held on a hunger strike. I’m willing to cut the young lady who interrupted me some slack because it’s worth being passionate about. Is this who we are? Is that something our Founders foresaw? Is that the America we want to leave our children? Our sense of justice is stronger than that. […]

This was clearly a very interactive exchange and later in his speech President Obama said:

“…I think that — and I’m going off script, as you might expect here. (Laughter and applause.) The voice of that woman is worth paying attention to. (Applause.) Obviously, I do not agree with much of what she said, and obviously she wasn’t listening to me in much of what I said. But these are tough issues, and the suggestion that we can gloss over them is wrong…”

Diane Wilson in her 24th day of a hunger strike in support of Guantanamo prisoners

At the same time, outside the White House, Diane Wilson has completed her 24th day of a water and salt only fast in support of the Guantanamo hunger strikers. Here’s part of her reaction to President Obama’s speech:

DIANE WILSON: I think when we finally start seeing the detainees being released. Like I said, there has been so many words, so many promises broken, that now is the time for action. When I actually see those detainees coming home—and also, the guys on the hunger strike, are they still on the hunger strike? Are they still being force-fed? Those are the type of questions I want to know [the answers to].

And I also—you know, excuse me for keep going on, but we’re pleading for the people, for the American people, to come out and support. I feel it’s the last leg of this closing Guantánamo now. And we can’t stop now. And we need people in front of the White House. We need people to continue this hunger strike. And so, I’m making a public plea to, please, join us. […]

13 Responses

Here’s a relevant comment from the Code Pink website, with which I agree wholeheartedly:

CODEPINK: Women For Peace

People keep asking Medea Benjamin if what she did– disrupting Obama — was “rude.” In response, she says,

“Is it rude to kill and terrorize innocent people with our drones? Is it rude to violate the sovereignty of other nations like Pakistan and Yemen? Is it rude to keep prisoners in indefinite detention in Guantanamo? Is it rude to keep 86 prisoners in Guantanamo who have been cleared for release? Is it rude to shove feeding tubes down prisoners’ throats instead of giving them justice? That’s what’s rude. That is rude.”

CODEPINK is planning a trip to Yemen to meet with drone strike survivors and the family members of those imprisoned in Guantanamo. Help CODEPINK to continue to expose the administration’s lies. Support us here: http://bit.ly/10RZ12F

Elmer, There’s just one major flaw in your comment from my point of view: You insist on continuing to define the prisoners at Guantanamo as “terrorists” in spite of the way most of them were sold for bounty or otherwise caught up illegally and left imprisoned and tortured without charge or trial. That’s what needs to be remedied immediately. The need to close Guantanamo Bay detention center has nothing to do with anyone’s truth and honor — except that of the President, the Congress, and the military of the United States of America.

I think that the most relevant articles are those I’ve copied below. That also includes the Preamble which sets up the framework for humane and just treatment of all human beings:

Article 5.
• No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.Article 6.
• Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.Article 7.
• All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.Article 8.
• Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.Article 9.
• No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.Article 10.
• Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.Article 11.
• (1) Everyone charged with a penal offense has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense.

• (2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offense on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offense, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offense was committed.

I just read something and I hate to think that there is truth found in these words, but sadly there seems to be some truth to them: (found this on a friend’s FB page) From @EliLake: “Said it before and will say it again. Obama talks like a comparative religion professor and acts like a blackwater executive.”

Fran thank you so much for your comment. I agree with your friend Eli that there is a wide gap between President Obama’s words and his actions towards the prisoners at Guantanamo thus far [five years into his Presidency]. He’s also trained as a Constitutional lawyer so one would think that he could do better in his words as well as his deeds.

I find that the mention of Blackwater {mercenaries who have broken many laws, committed several atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan, changed their corporate name several times and are still making out like bandits with huge contracts for all kinds of services} points out one of the problems that the Obama administration faces in closing Guantanamo. That’s the problem of fear of these detainees that still seems to be held by some members of Congress.

This unrealistic fear is constantly whipped up in all of these discussions. The missperception that these men are the “worst of the worst” was first made popular as a concept by Donald Rumsfeld. As long as that portrayal of the prisoners is repeated it makes it politically difficult to release them.

There was an interesting interview with author Greg Johnsen this morning in which he said (among other things) that we need to question what kind of country we are to hold people cleared for release out of fear (which I add is unjustified by any known evidence).

There is a new President now in Yemen who is much more cooperative with the US. But all along the government of Yemen has said that if the US actually has evidence of wrong doing on the part of their citizens that we should turn the evidence over to the Yemeni government and the men will be tried. This has not been done with previous prisoners released to Yemen and so they were eventually released.
The root of the problem is that up until this point the Obama administration may be talking about release but hasn’t changed the underlying policy put in place by the previous administration.

Elmer, what I don’t think Mickie realizes is you don’t get sent to Gitmo for throwing ice cream and puppies at US troops. Maybe some of them have been cleared, but the term terrorist applies and was used correctly. None of my family members have been sent to Gitmo. Maybe they weren’t directly involved in killing American’s but you don’t end up there because you were simply kniting a blanket for Osama. Let them go hungry, we are paying the food bill after all.

Unfortunately, Elmer lives in a world where elected officials, including the President of the United States, never lie or make mistakes, where priests are never pedophiles or the Catholic Church never covers up sexual abuse, and our government is never, ever wrong.

So, a large number of them were cleared, but according to you they are still terrorists? Someone in a poor country pockets some money for pointing a finger at someone else, and that someone else, according to you, is a “terrorist” who deserves the treatment they get. Oh well, according to your logic, the Japanese-American CITIZENS who were put in camps during WWII deserved it. The native-Americans who died on the Trail of Tears deserved it. I guess the slaves prior to Emancipation deserved it too. Because the government wouldn’t have allowed such a thing to happen without a good reason. I’ll take a wild guess that none of your relatives were Japanese Americans, or native-Americans, or descendants of slaves, or live in Yemen. Hopefully, they have a conscience and aren’t residents of the same la-la land that you apparently live in.

But in addition [to] adding to the chorus calling for the camp’s closure, he has a message for fellow Muslims.

If the Prophet Muhammad were to come back to Earth today, Holdbrooks said, he would find the best examples of Islam in the United States. American Muslims have a responsibility to live their faith so others can see a true example, not the perversions of the terrorists or the tyranny of corrupt governments in some majority-Muslim nations.[…]

While it may be a little more extreme than fits the scenario, I think comparing President Obama to a Blackwater executive makes a relevant point.

I try to limit my partisan comments but occasionally fail so I do here as I state that the reason I voted against Obama in the last election was just because of his continued support for counter-productive and otherwise suspect policies among which are some he covered in his speech.

Here is the dilemma. Has he been molasses slow to move concretely away from some of the policies he seems to recognize as morally compromising and legally untenable because his “inner Cheney”, as someone as said, is a real part of his decision making or because he addresses the reality of American politics. In the latter case, moving the American public and too many of her politicians away from the false premises of voluntary war, torture, and indefinite detention can be seen as a monumental task that can only be done in tiny increments.

If the latter is the predominant factor, and the President continues to move in a positive direction, maybe I will concede to his deserving the Peace Prize after all.

Meanwhile, it is important no matter his motivations that we who “get it” put the pressure on everywhere we can. We can join groups like Code Pink, we can talk to our legislators, we can talk to our neighbors and friends.

Speaking of talking about the issues as I see the basic fallacy with regard to Guantanamo and Bagram, I am not sure why my fellow Americans do not have such a vivid memory as I do regarding indefinite detention and the philosophy of the founders of our democracy.

I have no idea whether it was in the course of my public school education, of my college courses, or in programs and discussions outside the classroom that I was taught time and again, “it is better for 10 guilty individuals to go free than for 1 innocent person to be found guilty.”

Our court system needs a lot of reform, true, as some of our evolved practices seem to be counter to the actual achievement of justice, but we still do honor much of the time the framework that protects the accused until proven guilty by fairly high standards (depending on the court level and the crime).

We have thrived as a nation despite that practicing the above principle involves the making of mistakes that put some innocent people in jeopardy. Sometimes a guilty person is set free only to harm somebody else….steal another auto, maim or kill another person. That is the risk we take in recognizing that there is a far greater risk in giving too much power to a governing authority.

Some number…is it 5, 15, or 50?..of folks left at Gitmo have committed some type of crime. They may have helped plan or even carried out criminal attacks against Americans or others. We captured them without solid evidence of this or we corrupted what evidence we did have. They cannot be convicted by our high standards of proof of wrongdoing. In the tradition that has sustained our country for all these years, these individuals need to be released as soon as possible via a process that assesses their risk and has some element perhaps of follow up surveillance.

Those who have already been cleared present an open and shut case. Free them to whatever other country presents a practical relocation as soon as possible.

Finally it is my understanding that some of the prisoners can be found guilty given an effective trial. We need to do that on the mainland and apply the appropriate punishment if they are convicted. It seems odd to me that we have a large segment of our country that is so afraid of the strength of our government that they are trying to stockpile all kinds of weapons to be used if necessary against the government while we have a large segment that says the government is so weak we cannot effectively manage a bunch of people accused of serious crimes. (Never mind the serial killers and the Timothy McVeigh’s that we have effectively managed from a standpoint of public safety.)

Guantanamo fails on at least three counts. It is unnecessary. It poisons our reputation in the world. It is illegal and immoral on the part of a country maintaining American values.

You don’t have to like the folks being held. You do need to treat them as humans if you believe in America as more than a place to pursue material wealth.

The President could order the end to force feeding of the Hunger Strikers right now if he wanted to. Currently there are 36 hunger strikers being force fed. Today I read a letter from the prisoners to the medical staff questioning the morality of force feeding (as the AMA and others have already done.)

Here’s the letter with a little background information:

Hunger-striking prisoners at Guantánamo Bay have written an open letter asking military doctors to stop contributing to what they call “abusive conditions.” The letter calls out the doctors for taking part in force-feeding and pleads for “independent” medical professionals in their place.

Signed by 13 prisoners, the letter says:

“Your dual loyalties make trusting you impossible. … You will have to live with what you have done and not done here at Guantánamo for the rest of your life. You can make a difference. You can choose to stop actively contributing to the abusive conditions I am currently enduring.”

More than 100 of Guantánamo’s 166 prisoners are taking part in the hunger strike. At least 36 are being force-fed through tubes.